ntulearn_get_gradebook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: the default fan-out scope, the per-column courseId attribution, and the fact that scores may be absent in some columns. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but the added context is meaningful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope before secondary details (attribution, pagination). Every sentence carries information, though 'Supports pagination' is mildly redundant with the visible offset/limit parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential call-time concerns: default scope, how to narrow, and attribution. It does not explain related-tool routing, but no sibling overlaps this resource, so the omission is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains limit, offset, course_ids, and response_format. The description goes slightly beyond by giving a concrete course_ids example ('_123_1') and confirming pagination behavior, adding modest value over the schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('gradebook columns'), and scope ('across your enrolled courses'), and the 'including your scores where available' clause tells the agent what data it yields. No sibling tool competes for this resource, so the distinction is unambiguous without needing to name another tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly describes the default behavior (fan out across every available course) and the condition for narrowing it (pass course_ids=['_123_1']), which is actionable guidance. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or an alternative tool, so it lacks the exclusions that would make it a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.